If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I agree with Janice. It's a megacorporation welfare plan that will screw small businesses; now, if you order on-line from out of state (And the business doesn't have a physical presence in your state), you pay price plus shipping. If you buy locally, you pay price plus tax. It's pretty much a wash for the buyer. This is huge overhead burden for truly small businesses that would have to deal with literally thousands of different tax rates.

There are several approaches that would make this less onerous, if it has to be at all. It could simply impose the tax at the sending state end (Which is similar to how in-state internet sales are taxed in most states now, the business pays the rate applicable to its own location, not the rate applicable at the receiving end, which within my State could be anywhere from about 4.5 % to over 8%), which would be simple and not require an army of accountants. Or, each participating state could be required to have a single tax rate for out-of-state internet sales. Or, for that matter, it could be made to apply to businesses that only do a large dollar value of internet business, such as a million dollars in gross internet sales per year.

Any State that even has a sales tax would be nuts to opt out of this as it stands, since that State's own population isn't benefited by the State standing out of it, they already have to pay sales tax on in-state sales and the people there would now be paying taxes to 49 other States but nothing extra coming in, a variety of the "Spanish prisoner" dilemma so popular in psych experiments, as taxpayers being forced to pay taxes through another state strike back by returning the favor.

It won't produce nearly as much revenue as is being touted for it, and it will put another barrier in front of truly-small and start-up businesses, losing them the one tiny advantage over pervasive megacorporations in overhead costs that they presently enjoy.

I would like to add that the 'brick-and-mortar' shop owners receive numerous benefits from sales taxes ie: local police and fire protection, infrastructure improvements, etc. If local stores are losing business, then perhaps the taxes should be lowered to reduce the penalty of shopping locally.

Spreading the misery is no solution.

+1

The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.

I agree with Janice. It's a megacorporation welfare plan that will screw small businesses;

Actually, no; rather it specifically protects small businesses. All businesses that do less than one million dollars in internet revenue (not total corporate revenue) per year are excluded from having to collect these taxes. So, Joe's Fish and Tackle selling their miracle flies guaranteed to catch trout anywhere aren't going to get hit with this, but Amazon.com is.

Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker

now, if you order on-line from out of state (And the business doesn't have a physical presence in your state), you pay price plus shipping. If you buy locally, you pay price plus tax. It's pretty much a wash for the buyer.

No, sorry, you can't say that the shipping just gets to offset taxes due. One is revenue that is validly due to the state where the transaction occurs. The other goes to UPS or FedEx. Not comparable. Not at all.

Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker

This is huge overhead burden for truly small businesses that would have to deal with literally thousands of different tax rates.

No, they don't. There is very simple, very inexpensive software (~$200-$400 or less) out there that will handle this very easily and transparently. Someone puts in the ZIP code of the shipping address, and the program calculates the sales tax for that area. The bill specifically states that any state that opts to engage in collecting sales taxes from online sales in their state must have a simple, one-stop-shop for that state's sales tax compliance. A few hundred bucks on a business with a million dollars in internet revenue is not in any way an undue burden, and certainly not "huge."

Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker

There are several approaches that would make this less onerous, if it has to be at all. It could simply impose the tax at the sending state end (Which is similar to how in-state internet sales are taxed in most states now, the business pays the rate applicable to its own location, not the rate applicable at the receiving end, which within my State could be anywhere from about 4.5 % to over 8%), which would be simple and not require an army of accountants.

Any site that is doing that right now is acting illegally. Current federal law specifically forbids the practice you describe for any sales that have any part of the transaction outside of the state's borders. Since it's virtually impossible to have an internet transaction actually stay in the same country, much less the same state, this effectively never happens legally. L. L. Bean got their butts sued off over doing just this about twenty years ago.

Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker

Or, each participating state could be required to have a single tax rate for out-of-state internet sales. Or, for that matter, it could be made to apply to businesses that only do a large dollar value of internet business, such as a million dollars in gross internet sales per year.

Well, you're in luck....

Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker

Any State that even has a sales tax would be nuts to opt out of this as it stands, since that State's own population isn't benefited by the State standing out of it, they already have to pay sales tax on in-state sales and the people there would now be paying taxes to 49 other States but nothing extra coming in, a variety of the "Spanish prisoner" dilemma so popular in psych experiments, as taxpayers being forced to pay taxes through another state strike back by returning the favor.

Probably, but each state may find their own reason to have a different rate for internet sales, or none at all. This bill specifically returns that decision to the states, exactly the opposite of present federal law.

Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker

It won't produce nearly as much revenue as is being touted for it,

Maybe, maybe not. Tennessee depends almost entirely on sales tax for revenue (no state income tax, other than certain investments in certain circumstances), so there's the potential for a pretty sizable revenue here. Either way, it's not the fed's business to decide that for the states.

Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker

and it will put another barrier in front of truly-small and start-up businesses, losing them the one tiny advantage over pervasive megacorporations in overhead costs that they presently enjoy.

Except that those businesses you describe are specifically exempted from this, with the federal government forbidding states from attempting to collect sales tax from those businesses.

Look, what's happening right now is effectively quasi-legalized tax evasion. This is a loophole that was created in the early days of the internet before anyone know how much revenue this would cost states. There really is no excuse for the federal government picking winners and losers this way, particularly by making that choice for the sovereign states. There's no good reason that some things should get taxed and others shouldn't. If a widget sold to me at Target down the street incurs sales tax, then there's no valid reason that the same widget sold to me at target.com when I'm sitting in Tennessee when the sale occurs and the widget gets shipped to my door in Tennessee should be subject to the same tax. I'm a conservative, and that means that I believe in equal treatment under the law, and that means that if you're going to tax sales in a state, then you tax all sales in that state.

I care a whole lot less about the sales taxes than I do about "S&H" that usually appears to be about 3-4 times what I would expect it to be. For many of those companies it really is 'added profits'.

I haven't read the text and am not going to - does this also have to pass the house as well?

If a state wants the taxes collected regardless of where the company is located, where the warehouse is located, etc. they can get'r'dun. Texas already has.

It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.A man is but a product of his thoughts. What he thinks, he becomes. Gandhi

Originally Posted by Carol

When I judge someone's integrity one key thing I look at is - How does s/he treat people s/he doesn't agree with or does not like?
I can respect someone who I do not agree with, but I have NO respect for someone who puts others down in a public forum. That is the hallmark of someone who has no integrity, and cannot be trusted.

As long as the brainwashed American public votes fools into office we will get more of this. Laws and taxes don't seem to ever go away even when conservatives are elected once again, it would seem the money is already spent long before the tax revenue arrives.
French revolution anyone?

The French Revolution happened in 2006 then in 2008. Right now we're in the middle of the Reign of Terror which will be full steam ahead if the Dems regain the House in 2014. Also, the French Revolution was about taking away from the wealthy by force then killing them for sport. What we need is another American Revolution. That was about freedom.

I would like to add that the 'brick-and-mortar' shop owners receive numerous benefits from sales taxes ie: local police and fire protection, infrastructure improvements, etc. If local stores are losing business, then perhaps the taxes should be lowered to reduce the penalty of shopping locally.

Spreading the misery is no solution.

Here in NJ our sales tax rate is 7% but we have what's called Urban Enterprise Zones or UEZ for short. There the rate is 50% or 3.5%. This is designed to entice people in certain towns to buy locally. They are usually economically depressed areas like Camden, Jersey City, Cumberland county(where I live). It's not on all goods, however. I bought a car last year and it was not given UEZ status hence I paid the full 7% on a $29,000 car.

I agree with Janice. It's a megacorporation welfare plan that will screw small businesses; now, if you order on-line from out of state (And the business doesn't have a physical presence in your state), you pay price plus shipping. If you buy locally, you pay price plus tax. It's pretty much a wash for the buyer. This is huge overhead burden for truly small businesses that would have to deal with literally thousands of different tax rates.

There are several approaches that would make this less onerous, if it has to be at all. It could simply impose the tax at the sending state end (Which is similar to how in-state internet sales are taxed in most states now, the business pays the rate applicable to its own location, not the rate applicable at the receiving end, which within my State could be anywhere from about 4.5 % to over 8%), which would be simple and not require an army of accountants. Or, each participating state could be required to have a single tax rate for out-of-state internet sales. Or, for that matter, it could be made to apply to businesses that only do a large dollar value of internet business, such as a million dollars in gross internet sales per year.

Any State that even has a sales tax would be nuts to opt out of this as it stands, since that State's own population isn't benefited by the State standing out of it, they already have to pay sales tax on in-state sales and the people there would now be paying taxes to 49 other States but nothing extra coming in, a variety of the "Spanish prisoner" dilemma so popular in psych experiments, as taxpayers being forced to pay taxes through another state strike back by returning the favor.

It won't produce nearly as much revenue as is being touted for it, and it will put another barrier in front of truly-small and start-up businesses, losing them the one tiny advantage over pervasive megacorporations in overhead costs that they presently enjoy.

It should be easy to comply. Amazon is pushing for this law and they just happen to now sell its own tax compliance service to other merchants.